25. The objection to Jurisdiction as framed and argued by the
Respondents is misguided and is hereby dismissed.
(B)
WHETHER IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO FILE THE APPLICATION OUT
OF TIME
26. Article 30(2) of the Treaty provides as follows:
“The proceedings provided for in this Article shall be
instituted within two months of the enactment,
publication, directive, decision or action complained
of, or in the absence thereof, of the day in which it
came to the knowledge of the complainant, as the
case may be.”
27. The Applicant has made the point that because the detention of
the Subject was continuous, time could not have stopped
running two (2) months after his arrest. We have taken into
account the objections by the 2nd Respondent and we note that
in the Amended Response and in the Affidavit of Lieutenant
Rutayisire, not once has any of them stated the exact date
when the Subject was arrested and detained by the agents of
the Republic of Rwanda. The 2nd Respondent’s objection as to
time is premised on the candid statement of the Applicant that
her brother was arrested on 20th August 2010. Should we then
take it that time stopped running on 20th October 2010 and
REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010
Page 18